http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

>http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG

Thanks for spreading the word of cod.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG

Looks good to me! What did you serve with it?


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

Je?us wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
> Thanks for spreading the word of cod.

Cheeses on toast!

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
> Looks good to me! What did you serve with it?

tartar sauce

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 04:39:56 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
> >
> > Looks good to me! What did you serve with it?
>
> tartar sauce

No vegetables or anything else???


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 04:39:56 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>> >
>> > Looks good to me! What did you serve with it?
>>
>> tartar sauce
>
> No vegetables or anything else???

Garlic mashed potatoes and broccoli with cheese sauce.


>
>
> --
> Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to
> hold them.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG

That looks wonderful)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 10/8/2014 9:21 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
Looks good to me!

Jill

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:43:42 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
>Your Nikon takes much better pics than that POS iPhone 3.

Still lousey... what's with all that out of focus blurriness?
The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
they have no flash, useless at night.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:02:15 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:33:02 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Still lousey... what's with all that out of focus blurriness?
>
>Looks fine to me. Maybe you need a new spectacle, Colonel Klink.

Check the difference from teh bottom of the plate to teh top. the
bottom is so-so, the top is a mess.... look at the design on the dish.

>> The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
>> few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
>> they have no flash, useless at night.
>
>Most high-end cell phone cameras have flash. Along with a "Flashlight
>App".

I don't keep up with cell phone technology, I can't even remember the
name of the one I used (somehow Samsung sticks in my memory) but it
took very good photos, certainly good enough for posting food pics
here, for those who actually cook... takes me less than ten seconds to
photograph a plate three times... then download and edit after dinner,
food getting cold is a crock.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:43:42 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Next time try the egg-milk wash

> Omelet wrote:
>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...
>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.

For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:02:15 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> Maybe you need a new spectacle, Colonel Klink.

> Omelet wrote:
>
>> He hates me 'cause I never slept with him...
>
> He hates himself because he is all he has to sleep with
> I don't know, sometimes he used to seem normal, then he went petty
> trough vindictive and now I just shun contact. I have enough crazies to
> deal with in my world without encouraging those who refuse to take their
> meds.

For the record, I never once even considered sleeping with you. And
you know that. You're the one who somehow got the idea that I was
going to move in with you - and you posted that to RFC just out of the
total blue.

After having met you twice at casual austin.food gatherings 2 or 3
years ago and not giving you any indication that there was any sort of
romantic interest in the least, you somehow twisted that into MY
MOVING IN WITH YOU?

That was just way too Psycho for me. I sat there at stared at the
screen for at least 15 minutes wondering, WTF? That was just way too
spooky. I've met weird, semi-psycho women before but you win, hands
down. Mapi of austin.general still holds the male title, but at least
he announced his psychosis right there lying on the floor of the bar
at B.D. Reilly's rather than romantically obsessing over me for 2
years.

Needless to say, you need to come to terms with what happened and why
your mind works that way and stop making up excuses for your fixation
and disappointment before we become the next Yoli and Michael. I'd
prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

And Jeremy, I was just tired of your decade of bullshit and visions of
grandeur about all these things you're "working on" or have not done
in the past. Even posting a call for meetings with imaginary people
about imaginary projects of yours at "the normal time and place", as
if you are somebody important with a life. I'm pretty sure you're
manic depressive mixed with habitual liar.

Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG



college of dupage a local fav.


why is everyone so freaked out about picture quality?

"Matt Ferrari" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
>
>
> college of dupage a local fav.
>
>
> why is everyone so freaked out about picture quality?

Just to be picky? I don't know but I am always happy to see what someone
has been cooking. I don't need perfect pictures. It certainly puts
people off from wanting to share and that is a shame.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 10/9/2014 11:33 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
> few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
> they have no flash, useless at night.
>

I just got a new Samsung. The camera takes excellent photos, but with
little control that I've found yet. Flash control is a problem as I was
trying to take a photo of a marble windowsill and surrounding tile work
but the light coming in the window prevented the flash from going off.
I don't see any over ride for that. No zoom control for the lens
either. I need wide angle to shoot the interior of a bathroom remodel.

So, back to my other dedicated cameras to get what I want.

On 10/9/2014 12:31 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:24:13 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:02:15 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:33:02 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still lousey... what's with all that out of focus blurriness?
>>>
>>> Looks fine to me. Maybe you need a new spectacle, Colonel Klink.
>>
>> Check the difference from teh bottom of the plate to teh top. the
>> bottom is so-so, the top is a mess.... look at the design on the dish.
>
> It's called 'depth of field'. The center of the plate is in perfect
> focus.
>
> Sheesh already.
>
> -sw
>
Everyone should have Sheldon's plates. Then we would all take perfect
pictures. LOL

Jill

On 10/9/2014 1:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/9/2014 11:33 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
>> few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
>> they have no flash, useless at night.
>>
>
> I just got a new Samsung. The camera takes excellent photos, but with
> little control that I've found yet. Flash control is a problem as I was
> trying to take a photo of a marble windowsill and surrounding tile work
> but the light coming in the window prevented the flash from going off. I
> don't see any over ride for that. No zoom control for the lens
> either. I need wide angle to shoot the interior of a bathroom remodel.
>
> So, back to my other dedicated cameras to get what I want.

I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
*telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.

Jill

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:55:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 10/9/2014 11:33 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
> > few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
> > they have no flash, useless at night.
> >
All iPhone cameras have a flash. Some of the least expensive smart
phones don't. As it goes with other things, you get what you pay for.
>
> I just got a new Samsung. The camera takes excellent photos, but with
> little control that I've found yet. Flash control is a problem as I was
> trying to take a photo of a marble windowsill and surrounding tile work
> but the light coming in the window prevented the flash from going off.
> I don't see any over ride for that.

I have a Samsung, maybe mine works about the same way your does. With
your camera set to take a picture, you should see a triangle on the
left side of the screen. Tap it and you'll get a pop out where your
controls are (including flash) accessed.

> No zoom control for the lens either.
>
I use the volume control button to zoom images in and out.

> I need wide angle to shoot the interior of a bathroom remodel.
>
Wide angle isn't bundled with cell phones. You have to buy it
separately. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/360535508854?lpid=82

> So, back to my other dedicated cameras to get what I want.

Cell phone cameras are convenient, they are not trying to put digital
SLRs out of business. I love my cell phone camera, but I am not
trying to take professional quality pictures - I just want to record
things and events visually.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On 10/9/2014 9:04 AM, barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> Je?us wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 01:21:38 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>>>
>>> Thanks for spreading the word of cod.
>>
>> Cheeses on toast!
>>
>>
>
> ITYM Cheeses of Nazareth!

Title of a local comedy revue: "National Velveeta; or, What a Friend
We Have in Cheeses"

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.ftupet.com/upload/cod.JPG
>
> That looks wonderful)

It really does. Good job, tert near Julie! :-D

On 10/9/2014 4:33 PM, sf wrote:

>
> Looks like you bought the wrong phone for your camera wants/needs.
> Google "Samsung Galaxy S5 vs HTC One (M8)".
>

On the cameras:
http://www.stuff.tv/galaxy-s5/samsun...one-m8/feature
Winner: Draw
I did find it has an HDR mode that will compensate for some of the
lighting problems but I did not try it yet.

I bought it to talk on. Camera is incidental and I prefer using my
Nikon SLR for serious photography. I may take a dozen photos a year on
it. None of the photos I take on it will ever be printed, but it has
been handy to grab a quick snapshot

At work I use an old Kodak, one of the early digitals, that does what I
need, mostly making a record of something for future reference.

On 10/9/2014 4:26 PM, sf wrote:

>
> Cell phone cameras are convenient, they are not trying to put digital
> SLRs out of business. I love my cell phone camera, but I am not
> trying to take professional quality pictures - I just want to record
> things and events visually.
>

They are putting the point and shoot cameras out of business though.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:09:27 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 10/9/2014 4:26 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >
> > Cell phone cameras are convenient, they are not trying to put digital
> > SLRs out of business. I love my cell phone camera, but I am not
> > trying to take professional quality pictures - I just want to record
> > things and events visually.
> >
>
> They are putting the point and shoot cameras out of business though.

I'm sure they don't care if it means keeping the technology and
selling off a division that isn't profitable anymore.



--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:06:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 10/9/2014 4:33 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >
> > Looks like you bought the wrong phone for your camera wants/needs.
> > Google "Samsung Galaxy S5 vs HTC One (M8)".
> >
>
> On the cameras:
> http://www.stuff.tv/galaxy-s5/samsun...one-m8/feature
> Winner: Draw
> I did find it has an HDR mode that will compensate for some of the
> lighting problems but I did not try it yet.
>
> I bought it to talk on. Camera is incidental

Why did you bring it up if the camera function is incidental?

> and I prefer using my
> Nikon SLR for serious photography. I may take a dozen photos a year on
> it. None of the photos I take on it will ever be printed, but it has
> been handy to grab a snapshot

DD has a Nikon and loves it. But she's going to upgrade it for some
reason. I think it's because she decided she likes to take portrait
style pictures and some Nikon that has a price with more zeros is
supposedly better.
>
> At work I use an old Kodak, one of the early digitals, that does what I
> need, mostly making a record of something for future reference.

That's how I use my cell phone camera in general. What I love is my
memory card.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On 10/9/2014 10:53 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:06:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2014 4:33 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Looks like you bought the wrong phone for your camera wants/needs.
>>> Google "Samsung Galaxy S5 vs HTC One (M8)".
>>>
>>
>> On the cameras:
>> http://www.stuff.tv/galaxy-s5/samsun...one-m8/feature
>> Winner: Draw
>> I did find it has an HDR mode that will compensate for some of the
>> lighting problems but I did not try it yet.
>>
>> I bought it to talk on. Camera is incidental
>
> Why did you bring it up if the camera function is incidental?
>

It was an open topic. I tried the camera. It has some uses, but it is
not suitable for every need. If it is the only camera you have it is a
good enough one to grab a shot of little Johnny in the playground but
it won't get you into Nat Geographic. I bought the phone to talk on,
to use for some data communications, but taking pictures is probably the
last concern.



>
> DD has a Nikon and loves it. But she's going to upgrade it for some
> reason. I think it's because she decided she likes to take portrait
> style pictures and some Nikon that has a price with more zeros is
> supposedly better.

There is always a better camera. You can spend tons of money, like a
Hasselblad H5D for $44,000.

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:03:46 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>
> I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
> *telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.
>
> Jill

True. But where are all the people who use "real"
cameras complaining that their telephone reception
is bad?

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:33:02 AM UTC-4, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> The new iPhone cameras take lovely crisp photos, I tried a new one a
> few days ago, 12 Megapixels. Thing bad about any cell phone camera is
> they have no flash, useless at night.

It's not the number of pixels that's important. In fact, in general, the greater the number of pixel the poorer the quality. It's just a wonderful marketing point.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 10/10/2014 10:23 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:03:46 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
>> *telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.
>>
>> Jill
>
> True. But where are all the people who use "real"
> cameras complaining that their telephone reception
> is bad?
>
Beats me. When I had a cell phone I didn't use the camera feature at
all. In terms of telephones, I only have landline. It's required for
the security system so as I've said before, why pay two phone bills?

I doubt most people buy cell phones because of the camera.

Jill

On 2014-10-10 10:23 AM, Helpful person wrote:

>> I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
>> *telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.
>>
>> Jill
>
> True. But where are all the people who use "real"
> cameras complaining that their telephone reception
> is bad?


That was me last week. I was staying at an old hunting and fishing
lodge east of Algonquin Park. I had my point and shoot digital and my
digital SLR. I got lots of great shots of lakes and rivers and the fall
colours, but I could not get a cell phone signal.

On 2014-10-10 10:32 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 10:23 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:03:46 PM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
>>> *telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.
>
> Beats me. When I had a cell phone I didn't use the camera feature at
> all. In terms of telephones, I only have landline. It's required for
> the security system so as I've said before, why pay two phone bills?

It is a waste of time for me. My cheap flip phone does not have an
interface for the computer and I have no data plan, so any photos or
videos taken are of little use to me.


> I doubt most people buy cell phones because of the camera.

I don't know about that. Lots of people don't care that much for
picture quality, as evidenced by the old sales of polaroids and
disposable cameras. They prefer the convenience and portability of the
cell phone camera.

>

On 10/10/2014 10:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-10 10:23 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>>> I think people are forgetting... cell phones are supposed to be
>>> *telephones*, not cameras and flashlights.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> True. But where are all the people who use "real"
>> cameras complaining that their telephone reception
>> is bad?
>
>
> That was me last week. I was staying at an old hunting and fishing
> lodge east of Algonquin Park. I had my point and shoot digital and my
> digital SLR. I got lots of great shots of lakes and rivers and the fall
> colours, but I could not get a cell phone signal.
>
Thank goodness! Why on earth if you were in an idyllic setting would
you want to talk on the phone? In an emergency, just go to the nearest
hospital. I really do not understand the obsession with telephones.

Jill

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 17:13:49 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> You
> must be referring to the forthcoming iPhone 10.
>
> -sw

Your doctor should be the one drawing blood and testing it, not you.
I currently take .2mg Synthroid but you don't see me drawing my own
blood and testing it using my employers resources (as Kathleen has
openly admitted a few times).

-sw

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:38:37 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> It is a waste of time for me. My cheap flip phone does not have an
> interface for the computer and I have no data plan, so any photos or
> videos taken are of little use to me.

When I had a flip phone, I had a memory card and used a usb memory
card adaptor to transfer my images to the computer. Now I use the
same cord that I charge my phone with to make the transfer and leave
the memory card in place.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-10-10, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> They are putting the point and shoot cameras out of business though.

In yer personal opinion.

I'm not a fan of PnS cameras, but bought one recently. Very small
compact Canon Powershot S4000. Not a great camera, but waaay better
than anything I've seen on a cellphone.

nb